[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BANGLADESH IN TURMOIL:
A NATION ON THE BRINK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 20, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-642 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
MATT SALMON, Arizona Samoa
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
LUKE MESSER, Indiana WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Ali Riaz, Ph.D., public policy scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center.... 6
Maj. General A.M.N. Muniruzzaman, president, Bangladesh Institute
of Peace and Security Studies.................................. 23
Mr. John Sifton, Asia advocacy director, Human Rights Watch...... 34
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ali Riaz, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.............................. 9
Maj. General A.M.N. Muniruzzaman: Prepared statement............. 25
Mr. John Sifton: Prepared statement.............................. 36
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 54
BANGLADESH IN TURMOIL:
A NATION ON THE BRINK
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
afternoon.
I am Steve Chabot, chair of the subcommittee. I want to
apologize for not being able to start on time. We had votes on
the floor, so that is the reason we are starting a little bit
late. For any inconvenience to anybody, we apologize.
I would like to welcome everyone, my colleagues and our
distinguished witnesses to the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific hearing this afternoon. Mr. Faleomavaega, our ranking
member, unfortunately cannot be with us today, but we are
pleased to have Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii. She
will be able to take the position as ranking member here this
afternoon. We are also joined by Ms. Meng this afternoon. I ask
unanimous consent that she be permitted to sit in with the
subcommittee and be recognized to speak after all members of
the subcommittee have been recognized.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Bangladesh story has been an impressive one. It is a
nation that has worked hard to lift itself from the war-torn
ruins left behind by its bloody 1971 war of independence from
Pakistan. Over the last 20 years, there has been marked
progress, especially on the economic front, as Bangladesh has
grown into a crucial link between the dominant economies within
the Indo-Pacific economic corridor. Strategically located
between Asia's two powerhouses, India and China, and promptly
situated within the arc of Islam that extends from the Middle
East into the Southeast Asia, Bangladesh plays a key role in
maintaining regional stability.
As a moderate, secular nation, Bangladesh has become an
important security partner for the United States in the fight
against terrorism and Islamic extremism in South Asia, as well
as a collaborator on humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping
operations, and maritime security.
While there have been some noteworthy economic and social
improvements, particularly over the past decade, Bangladesh is
still a very poor country with an estimated 153 million people
who live in poverty. And, sadly, conditions for many working
Bangladeshis remain dangerous and unhealthy. Six months after
the tragedy at Rana Plaza, in which 1,127 Bangladeshi workers
were killed, changes have been slow to materialize.
Corruption also remains a significant obstacle to
Bangladesh's place in the world economy and the government's
sluggish efforts to combat it will only serve as a further
impediment to its economic growth.
As Bangladesh approaches its national elections, which are
likely to take place in early January, the country is in a
state of political turmoil. In Bangladesh, ``politics as
usual,'' I am afraid, takes on a much harsher meaning than it
does in many societies. As the major political parties ramp up
their campaigns, operatives utilize strikes, riots, and
blockades to destabilize the country and call attention to
their grievances.
When I visited Bangladesh about 2 weeks ago, we arrived at
the onset of a 3-day general strike--essentially shutting down
commerce--called by the opposition Bangladesh National Party,
BNP. During our stay, there were numerous reports of violence.
While in Dhaka, I had the opportunity to meet with both the
Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, of the Awami League, and the
opposition leader, former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, of the
BNP. During those meetings, I expressed my view that the
national elections should be free and fair, transparent, and
without violence. Both leaders were adamant in their positions.
Sheikh Hasina insisted that provisions were in place to conduct
a fair election. Madam Zia maintained that a fair election
could not be held without a caretaker government in place to
ensure transparency. As of today, the two sides remain at odds
and it is still uncertain whether or not the opposition BNP
will boycott the election.
In meetings with the leaders, I stressed the need to
curtail the growing violence, which can only bring about
further instability--possibly leading to the expansion of
extremist groups and creating a vacuum that could create
broader security risks for the region.
I also expressed my concerns about Bangladesh's
International Crimes Tribunal, which was created by Sheikh
Hasina in 2010 to investigate alleged crimes committed during
the 1971 war for independence, about 42 years ago. Opposition
leaders view the tribunal as a vehicle for the incumbent
leadership to punish its enemies and strengthen its hand in the
lead up to the elections. Since the tribunal began handing down
death sentences in February, numerous outbreaks of violence
have occurred.
Critics of the tribunal, many of whom agree that trials
should be held and that the guilty should be punished, maintain
that international standards are not being applied. When I
brought this up with the Foreign Minister, I was told, ``We are
actually creating new international standards.'' Based on some
of the reports I heard about the conduct of the trials, that
response was not very reassuring, particularly in light of
concerns expressed by U.S. Ambassador Steven Rapp, who heads
the State Department's Office of Global Criminal Justice and
was a former prosecutor of the Sierra Leone and Rwanda trials.
Ambassador Rapp, who has visited Bangladesh three times in
an attempt to advise the ICT and the government on
international standards, was largely ignored. Among the issues
about which he expressed concerns were: Interrogation without
cause, lengthy pretrial detentions, a lack of sufficient
protections for witnesses and victims, and allowing prosecutors
to call more witnesses than defendants were allowed to call.
Hopefully, we can have some discussion about the court this
afternoon among many other issues that we will be discussing.
In a nutshell, I would say that Bangladesh has much going
for it and much standing in the way of its continuing progress.
I look forward to hearing from our excellent panel of witnesses
here this afternoon and hope we can address some of the issues
in greater detail. I would now like to call out the gentleman
from California, the ranking member of the TNT subcommittee,
Brad Sherman from California, to make a statement.
Mr. Sherman. I regret my wife isn't here; she spent a year
working in Bangladesh with BRAC, the then Bangladesh Rural
Advancement Committee. I regret I can't spend time here, but I
have got to go to our subcommittee to deal with Syria.
I look forward to reading the transcript, and I hope the
witnesses will focus on at least two points. One of those is
the rights of Hindus in Bangladesh. I am glad to see that the
Vested Property Act, which allowed the confiscation of property
from a large number of Hindus, I believe has been repealed. But
I am concerned that successive administrations have not taken
steps to return the land expropriated from Hindus under the
law. And I am concerned with the other human rights abuses I
hear visited on religious minorities in Bangladesh. And that is
why so many of us have cosponsored the bill to establish a
separate office in the State Department to deal with religious
minorities in the Middle East and South Asia.
Second, I am concerned about Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen
Bank, which, of course, won the Nobel Prize for their
outstanding work in development. The government has moved
toward, in effect, taking it over, pushing Yunus out as
managing director. And I hope the witnesses will address that
issue. I look forward to reading your comments. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentlemen.
I would now like to recognize the acting ranking member
today, Ms. Gabbard, for 5 minutes to make an opening statement.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your holding this very important hearing today
and would like to also thank our witnesses for joining us and
everyone who took the time to come to discuss these important
issues that we all care very much about.
There is no question, as the name and focus of this hearing
suggests, Bangladesh is currently in a state of turmoil. As the
country heads toward election early next year, there are many
concerns about the stability of the country, which has come to
share significant ties with the U.S. on so many fronts, whether
it be counterterrorism or trade or the mitigation of natural
disasters. As our relationship continues to grow, part of this
growing friendship creates the opportunity for us to have
candid conversations whenever there are concerns that arise,
which we will have today.
I am particularly concerned over issues, as Mr. Sherman
mentioned, regarding religious freedom and specifically over
attacks on the minority Hindu community remaining in Bangladesh
today. I think it is unfortunate that sometimes perpetrators of
crimes against this community go unpunished, and it is up to
the Government of Bangladesh to act authoritatively against
those who incite and commit violence against anyone and protect
the rights of all minorities. I look forward to this
subcommittee under the leadership of our chairman as well as
another subcommittee for the Foreign Affairs Committee as a
whole in taking up this issue in particular.
Additionally, the languishing labor situation in this
country is troublesome. Since the Rana Plaza tragedy in April,
where over 1,100 garment workers were killed and over 2,500
injured, there was a renewed focus on the labor sector by the
government and the private sector. Both do carry a
responsibility to ensure that worker rights and safety
standards are being met in that country.
Changes seem to be slow in coming. On November 18, the Wall
Street Journal reported that Walmart found still more than 15
percent of the factories in its initial round of safety
inspections in Bangladesh failed safety audits. The U.S.
continues to be concerned about the political deadlock between
the two major political parties, in particular around the
upcoming elections and the increase in violence that this
deadlock creates.
Our Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia, Nisha
Biswal, just returned from Bangladesh and reiterated the U.S.'s
position that the opposing parties must come to an agreement
over the elections to ensure that there is a prevention of any
further violence. We hope that both parties engage directly in
a constructive dialogue in order to create this environment for
free, fair, and credible elections to occur. I think that this
will be a critical measure as we look at the U.S.-Bangladesh
relations moving forward.
There are areas where Bangladesh has seen improvement. The
economy has grown 6 percent per year over the last 2 decades,
despite a range of challenges. The poverty rate has dropped
from 40 percent to 31.5 percent over just the last 5 years,
lifting millions out of poverty. And it is important for us to
take note of these metrics and to see how we can continue to
grow in this area.
I think Bangladesh's long-term prospects are strong
primarily because of the strength of its human capital. The
population is young, hard-working, and the people as a whole
are resilient. Overcoming these areas of concern to expand
growth is key to ensuring the success of Bangladesh. I look
forward to our discussion today to see how we can continue to
engage to address some of the human rights concerns, the
concerns around religious freedom and persecution, and make
sure that all people are protected as this great country grows
both economically and past political instability.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I will now introduce our distinguished panel here this
afternoon. I will begin with Dr. Ali Riaz, who is a public
policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center here in Washington.
He is currently on a sabbatical leave from Illinois State
University, where he is the chair of the Department of Politics
and Government. Previously, Dr. Riaz taught at the University
of Bangladesh, England, and the University of South Carolina.
Additionally, he worked as a broadcast journalist for the BBC
World Service in London and has a long list of publications
focused on South Asia politics. We welcome you here this
afternoon, Doctor.
I would also like to introduce Major General Muniruzzaman,
who is currently the president of the Bangladesh Institute of
Peace and Security Studies, as well as the current chairman of
the Global Military Advisory Counsel on Climate Change. He is a
former career military officer who served 37 years active duty
and had the distinction of serving as the military secretary to
the President of Bangladesh. General Muniruzzaman is a graduate
of the Malaysian Armed Forces Staff College, National Defense
College, National University of Bangladesh, and the United
States Naval War College. He led the Bangladesh country
contingent to the U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia and
led the past election U.N. Mission in Cambodia to monitor the
political and security situation in that country. He sits on
the Board of Governors of Council for Asian Transnational
Threat Research and is a frequent speaker on international
security and policy issues.
We thank you, General, for being here to afternoon.
Our final witness is John Sifton, the Asia advocacy
director at Human Rights Watch, where he works primarily on
South and Southeast Asia. He previously served as the director
of One World Research, a public interest research and
investigation firm. Prior to that, he spent 6 years as a
researcher in the Asia division at Human Rights Watch. Mr.
Sifton also worked for the International Rescue Committee on
Afghanistan and Pakistan issues and at a refugee advocacy
organization in Albania and Kosovo. He holds a law degree from
New York University and a bachelor's degree from St. John's
College in Annapolis.
We welcome you here as well, Mr. Sifton.
This afternoon, we will be going by what we call the 5-
minute rule. Each of you will have 5 minutes. A yellow light
will come on when you have 1 minute left. Please try to wrap up
by the time the red light comes on. We will give you a little
leeway, but we ask that you wrap up as close as possible once
the red light comes on.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chabot. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
this hearing. Unfortunately, I have another commitment. I would
ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be entered into
the record.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection.
If you would like to make a brief opening statement, I
would allow it.
Mr. Connolly. I am glad we are holding this hearing. I
think Bangladesh is a very important nation, obviously, in
Southeast Asia and with a lot of challenges but also enormous
promise. So I applaud you and the ranking member for exploring
those issues and hopefully working through our bilateral
relationship to a more fruitful end.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Okay. Dr. Riaz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. If you
each would hit the button when you are testifying then the mike
will start operating. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ALI RIAZ, PH.D., PUBLIC POLICY SCHOLAR, WOODROW
WILSON CENTER
Mr. Riaz. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, the members of the
committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the political
situation in Bangladesh. I have submitted a written testimony.
Please accept that one as my statement, and I will summarize
some of the points that I have mentioned in my written
statement.
As we all know, Bangladeshi politics is once again at the
crossroads. In recent months the situation has taken a violent
turn as the opposition organized several general strikes, which
led to death and destruction, and has threatened more in the
coming days. The human cost of the violence is rising rapidly.
The government, on the other hand, has used excessive force
to quell the opposition and resorted to the prosecution of the
opposition leaders. The immediate reason for the current
political impasse can be traced back to the 15th amendment of
the constitution, which removed the caretaker government, which
ensured free, fair elections since 1996. The point of
contention is whether the election time government should be
comprised of political leaders or nonpartisan individuals.
The opposition alliance led by the BNP insists that the
government manned by politicians will influence the election
result in favor of the incumbent. The fundamental reasons for
the introduction of the caretaker government in 1996 were the
absence of trust among the political parties and of strong
institution that can be trusted to hold an acceptable election.
While current incumbent and opposition parties have been in
power since 1991, neither has tried to create necessary
institution nor has the climate of mistrust changed. Public
opinion polls since the removal of the system show an
overwhelming support for a neutral caretaker government during
the elections.
And the second point is the importance of an inclusive
election. The upcoming election is important at both domestic
and regional levels with significance for the U.S.-Bangladesh
relationship. Since transitioning from military rule in 1991,
Bangladesh it had four inclusive election but didn't produce a
very significant democratic institution.
One of the key issues is the International Crime Tribunal
that you have mentioned. These trials are of those who
perpetrated genocide and committed crimes against humanity
during the War of Independence in 1971. Trying the war criminal
was an election promise of the Awami League. Despite some
reservations about the trial process, opinion polls have shown
that the majority of Bangladeshi citizens support the work of
the ICT. Whether it plays a role upcoming election or not, in
my opinion, the trial of those who committed crimes against
humanity in 1971 should continue. This was long overdue.
Without dealing with the painful past and delivering justice,
the nation won't be able to move forward.
What are the future trajectories? We see three options at
this point, three possible scenarios. One is a routine
election, participated by all parties. However, given the
uncompromising positions of the ruling and opposition parties,
it is an unlikely scenario at this moment. Accomodation of some
of the demands of the opposition, perhaps a cabinet not headed
by the incumbent PM is the way out within the current
constitutional proviso. Opposition should be ready to make
compromises.
Number two, an election boycotted by the opposition. This
scenario is close to what happened in February 1996, when the
BNP unilaterally ran a sham election. Despite the apparent
similarities between 1996 and 2013, the situation on the ground
is different this time around. Few allies of the ruling party
will join the election. The legitimacy of such an election is
an open question. Such elections do not produce a durable
Parliament nor bring political stability.
Third option is the deferral of the election. It can be
done within the purview of the current constitution or through
extra-constitutional steps to be ratified post-facto by the
next Parliament. One of the articles of the Bangladesh
constitution stipulates that election will be held within 90
days after the dissolution of the Parliament. Therefore, if
Parliament is dissolved, the window of time can be used to
formulate a solution through mediation between political
parties.
Since the caretaker government issue was never placed
before the public for approval, one way out could be a
referendum on the issue during the extended period. The general
election can follow based on the election results of the
referendum. This would give all parties a sense of victory.
Finally, the role of the international community.
The United States and the international community can take
the following steps that I would recommend. Number one, instead
of focusing on elections every 5 years, as tension escalates,
the United States should emphasize on the quality of democracy.
Concrete action steps should be laid out to be followed by the
political parties. For adherence to each step, the country
should be rewarded with benefits that help the entire
population or the most productive sectors of the country. For
example, the restoring the GSP, easing the tariff barriers the
productive sectors, especially ready-made garments.
Number two. Building institutions for sustainable and
quality democracy such as strong election commission should be
the key focus of the international community, and commitment
for long-term engagements is necessary.
Number three. The United States should make clear
statements in regard to the post-election tolerance, including
safeguarding the weaker section of the society, particularly
religious minorities and the results of those fallout.
Number four, encourage all parties to agree on containing
religious extremism.
Number five, international community should neither
franchise its responsibilities to regional powers, nor should
the regional powers be excluded from this international effort.
In particular, India's valid security concerns must be
addressed. An institutional structure should be created to
ensure that domestic political environment in Bangladesh does
not threaten its neighbor or the regional security.
The present political crisis in Bangladesh can be turned
into an opportunity to build a stable, democratic, prosperous
country. Economic and social achievements of recent decades
show that citizens are capable of taking steps in the right
direction. It is time for Bangladeshi political leaders to take
the right decisions. That is, to hold an inclusive election,
agree on post-election tolerant behavior; rein in extremism;
commit to address the issue of war crimes judiciously; and
commit to regional peace. And it is time for the international
community to help them in this regard. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riaz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. General, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GENERAL A.M.N. MUNIRUZZAMAN, PRESIDENT,
BANGLADESH INSTITUTE OF PEACE AND SECURITY STUDIES
General Muniruzzaman. Mr. Chairman, and honorable member,
thank you again for inviting us to testify before this
committee. What I would like to start by saying that I shall
cover some of the salient points of the recent testimony that I
have given and address the main issues of the questions that
are posed to me.
It is important to say that a combination of multiple
forces of political violence, weak governance, corruption,
poverty, and rising Islamic militancy is very rapidly haunting
the very core of the Bangladeshi state and turning it into a
fragile state. The lack of political trust between the two
political parties and particularly between the two leaders of
the parties has meant that democratic process in the country is
dysfunctional. The current state of political impasse comes
with a very resolution that was passed and the amendment that
was passed in the Parliament of the 15th amendment, which
people perceive was done by the government with ulterior
motives. The result of protests by the opposition and its
allies, including the Jammat-e-Islami, has brought widespread
violence on the street and has resulted in over 200 deaths in
the last few months and injured many more.
Experience of Bangladesh's history of elections shows that
incumbent government has the capacity and the means to
manipulate and rig election. Therefore, a wide majority of the
people want a neutral caretaker government to hold elections.
And that is only way out of the current political impasse in
the country. The country has had weak governance for many years
and the state of law and order was poor and crime was on the
rise. There were political force disappearances over the last
few years; industrial labor standards were very appalling,
resulting in Rana Plaza incidents with impunity. We also saw
the squeezing of the space of civil society, and the role of
civil society has been curbed over the last few years. And the
freedom of press and expression is under threat, as journalists
are in jail for expressing their opinions. TV channels and
newspapers have been closed. And the culture of winner-take-all
approach has made the government's position very rigid.
There is also widespread corruption in the country, and the
prevalent crony capitalism persists. It is also important to
say that the property reduction that has taken place over the
last few years has also been hit by the government stance
against the Grameen Bank and politically against Professor
Yunus.
I would like to say that there is the riding tendency of
Islamic militarism in Bangladesh, and that is going to hit at
the very core of the Bangladesh's stand as a secular and a
moderate state. The reasons for this rise is due to a multiple
forces of internal impacts and external impacts. But the part
that I would like to very much emphasize here before this
committee is that the current state of political intolerance by
the government toward its opposition and the current state of
the political violence that persists in the country, if this
continues, the country will soon enter a phase of instability.
And any instability in Bangladesh will create the ground for
militant parties and organizations to thrive and expand their
scope of operation within the country.
We also see that any militant operations in Bangladesh will
have impacts on the regional security particularly because of
the 19th--2014 withdrawal of the U.S. Forces from Afghanistan,
where the security of the region will become very fragile. I
would also like to say that in this state of fragility, the
relationship between the United States and Bangladesh needs to
be observed very carefully.
A question was also posed, what needs to happen for a
stable, secure, and accountable government in Bangladesh? What
I would like to say that we first need a change of political
culture. We need important government organizations to be
reformed, including the judiciary, which has to be free and
accountable. We need enforcement to make election commission,
anti-corruption commission, and other bodies more functional.
There has to be a definite role of the civil society in
expanding the space and making the government accountable. The
system of impunity by government and its cronies has to stop so
that the rule of law can be established. And we need a free and
a robust media, and media should not be hampered by the
government. We also need political forces on issues of state,
and we need national policies, not personal and private
policies. We need an educated population to enforce that the
governments are held accountable.
A very interesting question was also posed to me saying
that in this current of state of the impasse and the political
violence that persists in the country, will it raise the army
coming into play in a military coup? My answer to this
question, the military does not have a role in solving
political problems in a democratic country. And having seen the
experience of 2007, I also feel that the military does not also
have the appetite for that. But the fact remains that the
military remains the only credible and acceptable institution
in the country. In spite of the politicalization of all state
institutions by the current government, the military has
remained apolitical, and therefore, the military should play
the role that is in the best interests of the country, but I
presume that if the violence persists, the military at a time
may be sucked into the process. But that is not something that
you should welcome. I once again say that thank you for the
hearing. And I would hope that our international friends and
partners continue to engage Bangladesh so that Bangladesh
doesn't slip into a state of violence and become, say, fragile
to a failed state. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, General.
[The prepared statement of General Munruzzaman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Sifton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SIFTON, ASIA ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH
Mr. Sifton. Thank you for inviting me to testify today at
this very well-timed hearing. The other witnesses have already
discussed Bangladesh's dire political situation and the risks
it presents.
I would like to focus on the specific human rights issues
that the current political impasse has brought to bear and
describe in more detail exactly how they will be affected by
the events of the hour.
So let me first discuss the key human rights issues in play
in this current political impasse. The parameters of the
standoff are well documented. The ruling party, the Awami
League, has refused the BNP's demands for a caretaker
government. As a result, and as the other witnesses have
already said, there is a very real possibility that the BNP and
most of its political allies will boycott the election, and
thus the subsequent Parliament and the government that those
elections would create.
So let's discuss what that will lead to. With that
instability will come political volatility. In boycotting
before and after the elections, the BNP and its allies will
presumably hold protests, cartels, shutting down transit, and
economic activity in key urban areas. And in response, state
security forces will use force of varying types; some of it
responsive, some of it proactive. And perhaps none of this
would be too worrisome in the abstract were it not for the fact
that cartels and security forces' responses to them are almost
always accompanied by violence. Mob attacks by the political
factions and excessive use of force by state actors. And some
of the worst violence so far this year occurred between gangs
of rival party activists, both from the Awami League, BNP, and
Jamaat, none of whose leaders, it should be noted today, have
done much to restrain their supporters during that violence.
Many people are likely to be injured in the future
political violence that would accompany a boycott and likely a
large number of people will be killed. Many people will also be
detained. And I want to emphasize that this political violence
is illegal violence. Every government is entitled, even
obligated, to use police powers to maintain order, even the use
of force, so long as it is proportional and not excessive.
The problem is that in Bangladesh, security forces usually
don't exercise force and measured and proportional way. Human
Rights Watch has documented Bangladeshi security forces using
excessive force in responding to street protests for years, but
including major violence this year, for instance, the violence
in early May that killed approximately 50 people. By our
estimates, security forces have killed almost a 150 people and
injured as least 2,000 since February of this year. And while
large numbers of protesters have been arrested, the Bangladeshi
authorities haven't held anybody accountable among the security
forces for excessive force.
So this political instability is going to make matters
worse. And if the best predictor of future behavior is past
behavior, we have very serious causes for concern.
But the violence is not the only concern. Heightened
political volatility in coming weeks and months is going to
lead to other kinds of abuses of civil and political rights.
Crackdowns on freedom of speech, harassment of journalists'
activities, civil society groups. This is already underway. The
committee is aware, of course, that a key human rights group in
Bangladesh, Odhikar, had several members jailed this year. One
remains in custody. The harassment of Odhikar continues. I went
to Odhikar's offices last week in Dhaka during a passing visit
to Bangladesh, and there were two men on each corner of the
street who, from looks and manner, I took to be plainclothes
police officers. Their overt surveillance was, frankly,
pathetic and thuggish. If nothing else comes of this hearing,
we can at least call on Bangladesh's Government to end this
shameful harassment of civil society groups.
The committee is also aware that overbroad and vague laws,
such as the Information Communication Technology Act, are being
used to target groups simply for acts of free speech. This act
has been used not only against Odhikar but against journalists
and against bloggers in recent months. The breakdown of the
political order in Bangladesh is also going to have knockoff
effects on other human rights issues beyond the political
realm. There are many other human rights issues in Bangladesh,
as the committee is aware. Women's rights issues, which Human
Rights Watch has reported on; the labor rights issues that are
the issue of the day; and international justice issues
connected to the tribunal.
Human Rights Watch has supported and continues to support
efforts to hold perpetrators responsible for the terrible
crimes of the 1971 conflict. But as the chairman has made clear
already, that tribunal has been marred by deficiencies which
have undermined the integrity of its processes. And since this
process includes the death penalty, there is good reason for
human rights groups, such as ours, to be quite concerned.
So all of these important human rights issues will be
impacted by the possible breakdown of political order in
Bangladesh. The consequences are clear.
So what can be done to address all of this? Well, the
United States and other governments have already stated their
concerns from Secretary of State Kerry writing to Sheikh Hasina
and the leaders of the opposition to your visit 2 week ago to
secretary--Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal's visit just this
past weekend. The message has been delivered. But it will help
for Congress to further reinforce that message and back up
those concerns with warnings about the consequences to
Bangladesh if this political crisis spins out of control.
Everything Bangladesh wants and needs today, tariff reductions,
goodwill in Europe to maintain low tariffs there, continued use
of Bangladesh military forces from U.N. Peacekeeping, which is
a key source of revenues of the military, involvement in
regional security and strategic frameworks, all of this will be
put at risk if Bangladesh suffers a political implosion. And,
on some level, Bangladesh's leaders already know this, but it
always helps to remind them.
And I hope that this committee hearing does that today.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sifton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Sifton.
Now members of the panel will have 5 minutes to ask
questions of the witnesses. I will begin.
It is too soon to say exactly how the elections will unfold
in January. As history has shown, virtually anything is
possible under Bangladeshi politics. However, we know that
opposition leader Khaleda Zia met with Bangladesh's Sheikh
Hasina 2 days ago, I believe, in which apparently some
encouraging words came out--maybe a step forward. But at the
same time, they split without an agreement, and Khaleda Zia
still demands that Prime Minister Hasina step down from office
and the caretaker government be put in place to oversee the
national elections.
Mr. Sifton, you already gave your analysis of what might
happen. I would be interested to hear what Dr. Riaz and General
Muniruzzaman think is the most likely scenario in your opinions
to play out here? If you had to, what do you think is the most
likely?
Mr. Riaz. I mean, lately the meeting between opposition
leader and the President, the President has a very limited
constitutional power. In that case, how much he would be able
to intervene in this kind of situation is not very clear.
Previous situations in the history tell that it is not. But he
has moral power. There is no doubt in my mind that the
President does carry some moral power if he wants to, a very
limited constitutional one.
And going forward, in terms of these three scenarios that
are mentioned, I am not very much optimistic about an inclusive
election at this point, unless something dramatic happens, and
that is why I was suggesting that at least some form of
accommodation of the opposition's demand, including at least a
cabinet not headed by the incumbent PM, prime minister, would
be an option or deferral of the election, but the likely
scenario is a non-inclusive election that Bangladesh is going
to experience. I wish I am wrong, but as of today, that is what
it looks like.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. General?
General Muniruzzaman. Thank you, Chairman.
My first scenario is that Prime Minister Hasina will try
and push toward a one-party election with disastrous
consequences for country because if she does that, then the
country will move in the path of instability because the post-
election violence is going to be even higher than the
preelection violence.
The second option that I see is that if she finds it
absolutely difficult to push toward the one-party election,
which is her first desire, then she will probably ask the
President to declare a state of emergency, by which she can
stall the elections, buy more time for herself and perhaps
think that she can bid up on the opposition and civil society
to soften the stun and then come back to elections maybe after
a year or a year and a half.
The third option that I see is that the level of violence
goes so high that the military reluctantly is sucked into the
process to restore some bit of stability in the country and
provide security to citizens. But that is the third option that
I see.
But in total, the current government's stand in trying to
solve the problem doesn't seem to be apparent because prime
minister in the last couple of days in forming the so-called
interim government has shown that she does not really care
about what sort of accommodation is needed to solve the
problem.
Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Sifton, having heard the two comments there, what do
you think the U.S. and the world's response ought to be either
in advance of the election or afterwards, depending on which
option occurs?
Mr. Sifton. Well, in the coming weeks and months, just
because the leadership of the Awami League so far has not
heeded the warnings that so many people have given doesn't mean
the message shouldn't continue to be delivered. I think, at
some point, Sheikh Hasina will have to come to terms with the
reality that if she forces through a one-party government, that
it will only lead to unended, open-ended protests, which will
put at stake everything that Bangladesh wants and needs right
now. She may not realize it today, but she eventually will have
to realize it. The question is, will it be too late by the time
she realizes it?
So, in any case, I think the message just needs to be
brought again and again and again. She does not have within her
own cabinet and government enough people telling her what to
do.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time is expired.
The gentlelady from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Kind of the general thread that has been common through
each of your testimonies has been your pessimism at a fair
election and an open election as well as your agreement that if
this does not occur that the post-election violence is likely
to occur.
I am wondering if you can tell me a little bit about that
post election violence. Who is the target? Based on the
scenarios that you are talking about, what constituencies are
targeted in that scenario?
Mr. Riaz. The violence that is anticipated is mostly the
post-election violence. If you look back, in 2001 and previous
elections it was largely the religious minorities, ethnic
minorities; they become a target of all these attacks that we
have seen previously. In case of an election, if it is a non-
inclusive election or unilateral election, however we identify
it, definitely it would be the opposition activist political
activists who would become target.
But even before we reach to that kind of a situation, post-
election situation, the election itself would be very violent
if this is a non-inclusive election because the opposition will
tend not only call for a boycott, they might try to resist and
hence the violence will spread. And I am afraid the violence
might not stay within the boundaries of Bangladesh border. That
is the most worrying part, and given the history of Bangladesh,
of Islamist militancy, with left wing radicalism present, all
these things are recipe for disaster. At this point, those are
the ones that need to be taken into account as well.
General Muniruzzaman. This time, the political violence in
the post-election period is not only going to be resisting the
government by the opposition, it will be a question of
existence of the opposition forces within the country. There
has been statements given out by members of the current
government that this is the last election between what they
call pro forces and anti forces. So it is not going to be a
political process of protest, but it is going to be a fight for
existence of forces which are not included within the
government.
I also see that the level of protests can go so violent
that there would be widespread loss of life and property within
the country. And this has ramifications of spillover beyond the
borders of Bangladesh, and Bangladesh, which is so closely
bordering with Indian state and the level of violence that
exists in the fenced border between India and Pakistan, where
India and Bangladesh, where Indian border guards regularly kill
Bangladeshi citizens, it is likely that the spillover impacts
would have a tremendous amount of negative impact on the Indian
state and the Indian side.
I also see impacts on minorities, both religious minorities
and ethnic minorities. So, therefore, it is going to become
extremely fragile and volatile in the post-election period.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
Mr. Sifton, if in your answer you could also include your
thoughts or your assessments of how the India-Bangladesh
relationship is currently, especially as we are moving into
this period.
Mr. Sifton. Well, first, about the election being unfair,
it is not even necessary that the election be unfair for there
to be protests. Suffice it to say, if the election is run by a
government which is not bipartisan, multipartisan, it will be
perceived to have been unfair, and that is all that really
counts. There will be protests even if the election was run
fully fairly and freely. So it is really about the perceptions.
Second, about the violence that would occur, who would be
targeted? I think it is important to understand that a lot of
the violence during hartals is not directed. It can be--
innocent people can be caught up in it. During hartals, many
victims are ordinary civilians who are just going about their
business trying to get around from point A to point B. It
depends on what time of day it is. There are a lot of factors
there. But it really is important to understand it is not
necessarily violence directed at particular forces but rather
widespread chaos where loss of life will be high.
It is also important to recognize that it is not just
political forces who have been targeted. The security forces
themselves get targeted, and although they have a long track
record of abuse, they are also are killed in this violence,
ordinary police officers are killed.
As far as the India-Bangladesh relationship goes, it is a
very complex one. And I think it is full of, there are a lot of
misperceptions about what India wants. It is very difficult to
know exactly what India wants. But the important thing is for
India to play a constructive role here and not back a winner or
decide things like, but to insist that a process be run that
mitigates and lessens the likelihood of widespread chaos and
violence. That is the most important thing, not to pick a
winner but to mitigate and lessen the likelihood of massive
violence and human rights abuse.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time is
expired.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate it. I have been moving in and out of meetings
today as you well know. A couple of questions for any of you to
answer and preferably all, Bangladesh has had a growing
extremist movement pushing toward Islamic policies to be
implemented. In that process, how likely is it that we would
see civil strife between secular and religious groups to the
extent that we have seen in some Middle Eastern, Egypt, other
places where there is a growing problem? In your opinion, is
that a growing problem? If so, and it was just mentioned in
your testimony just a second ago about religious minorities. I
would like to get your ideas, all three of your ideas on that.
Mr. Riaz. The conflict between the secularists and the
Islamist forces, particularly in the past years, we have seen
the rise of Islamist forces in Bangladesh; perhaps for a decade
we have seen that.
However, I would not say that it has reached to a point
that there would be a conflict as we have seen in case of the
Middle East. It is my understanding, and my understanding based
on my research and others that there would be a growing
tension, and that tension is already present in the case of
Bangladesh. But all other political uncertainty may contribute
to this kind of situation. And that is a worrying part of it.
By itself, this is not going to transform into a conflict
between the Islamists and the secularists. But if there is
continued uncertainty, violence and political situations,
instability within the political situation that might
contribute to that kind of a conflict in future. But in short
term, I don't see that becoming a major element, though it
would remain, constantly it will remain, as a reminder of
Bangladeshis, I would say the issue of identity is there; of
course, political ideological differences are there. And over a
period it has grown. It might continue.
Mr. Collins. Okay.
Mr. Riaz. Thank you.
General Muniruzzaman. Thank you, sir.
What I would like to say, what I said in the beginning, I
emphasize again, any state of instability within the country by
running a one-party election that the government plans now will
have created a space for nonstate actors and extremist forces
to thrive. And we already see some early signs of that in the
form that there has been resurgence of small, splinter
terrorist organizations which are surfacing in the last couple
of months were completely not present in the scene before.
We also see that there has been impact of the return of
migrant workers in the country who bring a different kind of
ideology of Islam back to Bangladesh which is based on the
principles of Sufi Islam, and there is a silent clash of the
Sufi Islam and Wahhabi brand of Islam that comes back with the
migrant workers.
We have also seen the impacts, without solid proof, of some
Middle Eastern NGO money coming into Bangladesh and having its
impact. We see that there has been a marginalization of people
at the grass root and nondelivery of services by the state to
its own citizens and people, so, therefore, the space has been
created by that kind of a state of what I call the Hamas
impact, where the state does not exist; the nonstate actors
exist. Therefore, that kind of a situation is also bringing the
specter of Islamic forces coming into the play and creating
more space for themselves. But I don't really see the kind of
play that we are seeing in the Middle East or in the Arab
Spring coming to Bangladesh any time soon. But I see that there
will be a resurgent forces of Islamic elements coming into the
fore if the government persists with the one-party election and
destabilizes the country.
Mr. Sifton. I think it is a question of what it means to
thrive. There is thriving and then there is thriving. It would
be a mistake to fear a situation in which established political
forces are so weakened that they cease to exist, and there is a
vacuum which can only be filled by radical Islamist groups
which suddenly come on the scene. That is not going to happen.
The two established political entities, whatever happens, are
going to remain on the scene for some time. What will happen,
this thriving that the other witnesses are talking about,
doesn't necessarily mean thriving politically, but the bigger
fear is that there are radical groups which would ally
themselves with the established political orders. The
established political groups would ally themselves with radical
groups in order to gain political strength.
Mr. Collins. But could we also be, in your testimony, could
you be giving more of a Western thought of what thriving
politically is and what may be thriving as they are mentioning
in the destabilization and in an environment that is, we think
of thriving----
Mr. Sifton. They are not going to win elections.
Mr. Collins. Right. But they don't have to----
Mr. Sifton. To be dangerous.
Mr. Collins. So I think sometimes when we look at this,
that is the sphere of us looking at it from American policy
eyes that we look at it in terms of our, what we believe
through the elections process they are talking about, it is
interesting to hear the dichotomy here of the two answers there
is a problem from our perception and the perception on the
ground. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that is something that, if my
time is over, I think that is something that I think has
infiltrated this region for a long time and is understanding
the ground work on definitional issues and things that we can
work on, you know, from American perspective and a foreign
policy perspective and also from the indigenous perspective as
well. So I appreciate your having this hearing, and I thank you
very much.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
As we all know, Bangladesh is an important partner for the
United States both as a strategic geographical ally and as a
nation that yearns for the political and cultural tolerance,
values that here in America we work tirelessly to promote
abroad.
My first question concerns accidents in manufacturing
sites, like Rana Plaza and Tajrin Garments, reflecting a system
of workers' protection and labor standards that require
improvement. Mr. Sifton has outlined the need for government
institutionalized labor reform, like the formation of unions in
his written testimony.
How can the United States facilitate the explicit writing
and passage of such reform and what are some other avenues
through which we can incentivize real and quantitative labor
reform?
Mr. Sifton. So what is going on right now with the GSP road
map to return Bangladesh to getting GSP is the best leverage to
get the legal reforms and the institutional reforms that
Bangladesh's Department of Labor to the labor law itself. The
fact of the matter is the federations on the ground and the
other institutions, labor rights organizations on the ground,
know fully well exactly what is wrong with Bangladesh's labor
law and what needs to be fixed.
They have written memos on it with recommendations. It is
just a question of getting those political changes made to the
law and getting the department of labor in Bangladesh to make
institutional changes to make those labor law provisions, you
know, real, so that workers are actually protected.
But all of that will be put at risk if there is a political
crisis in Bangladesh and that is why this is such a serious
moment in the political realm.
General Muniruzzaman. Bangladeshi labor standards have a
lot of questions to be answered. On this, I suggest that our
international friends and partners, particularly the United
States and the bigger markets where Bangladeshi goods go,
particularly the ready-made garments, there has to be also
positive kind of engagement both on a public and private sector
involvement with our industry in Bangladesh. So I am calling
for the U.S. Government to engage Bangladesh and its industry.
I am also calling for the U.S. private sector, the retailers,
the big Walmarts of the world, to come forward and engage
Bangladesh effectively and positively.
So there has to be a bipartisanship kind of effort in
trying to look at the problem and solving the problem. The
labor standards are in a very sorry state. We need labor law
reforms. We need the federations to come and play effective
roles. But the existing laws that exist in the country are also
very laxly implemented. So we need better governance by the
government to implement the existing laws so the existing laws
also are not bypassed by the people and the industry, and we
don't want to see the kind of crony capitalism where
industrialists close to the government in power can do things
and go about doing things with impunity. Thank you.
Mr. Riaz. It is largely a matter of shared responsibility.
What happened in Bangladesh, the ready-made garment sector, for
example, is a result of private entrepreneurship, and it has
benefitted from this lax administrative and labor laws. But it
is time to utilize those, implement those. And more
importantly, it cannot be done only from within the country.
Given that it is largely for the export sector, there has to be
some commitment from outside, and here I see the role of
international community, particularly the United States and the
European Union, given the European Union is the largest market
of ready-made garments, there should be political engagement.
Penalizing is not going to help at this moment. More positive
engagement is necessary, not only at the government level but
at the civil society level and also with those who own the
industry, the entrepreneurs that make contributions and the
laborers, basically who have built this industry from
absolutely nothing.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady yields back.
We will begin a second round now. I will recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
I would now like to focus at least my attention on
Bangladesh's international criminal tribunal.
Mr. Sifton, if I could start with you, what actions might
the U.S. Government take at this point to urge the Government
of Bangladesh to bring the tribunal into compliance with
international standards, assuming that they are not yet, given
the Bangladeshi Government's unwillingness thus far to
implement the recommendations of U.S. Ambassador for Global
Criminal Justice, Stephen Rapp, which were offered at the
request of the Bangladeshi Government about a year and a half
ago? What would your comment be on that?
Mr. Sifton. Well, again, as with a lot of other issues, the
patient isn't taking the medication, so it is very tough to
know exactly what to do in that context.
Ambassador Rapp has made some very good recommendations. I
feel that Human Rights Watch has made some very good
recommendations. But they haven't been taken to heart. There is
no leverage as there is with the Cambodian tribunal with
funding because there is no international funding for the
tribunal so there is very little left to do except continue
insisting on it.
But the one key thing that really drives home the reality
is the depoliticization. It is one thing to talk about the
shortcomings, procedural shortcomings of the tribunal. It is
another to talk about the execution of defendants, the death
penalty, in a political context. And I think there is a place
where the European Union, which is opposed to the death
penalty, and the U.S., which has a more nuanced view, can get
together and say, whether you support the death penalty or not,
carrying out death sentences, executions, in a political
context either in the lead up or the immediate aftermath of an
election is a bad recipe for the perception that there is real
justice going on. And that is a warning that the EU and the
United States can make together. Even India could say that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Let me ask any of the witnesses who would like to comment
on this, there have been reports about several disappearances
of witnesses for the defense, one of whom turned up apparently
without explanation in an Indian jail. There are reports about
the forced resignation of the supreme court justice over
allegations of inappropriate conversations outside the
courtroom with prosecutors, allegations about the defense being
limited in one case to about three witnesses, and then the
prosecution having far more witnesses than that.
Are there any comments on those? Are they true as far as we
know? What concerns relative to fairness and international
standards do they raise? Especially, as was indicated, when we
were dealing with potential death sentences here. I would be
happy to hear from any of the witnesses that might want to
comment.
Mr. Sifton. One just quick factual point is that the
supreme court justice in question who resigned did not deny the
allegations that he had improperly communicated with
prosecutors. These were conversations that were intercepted by
some means and given transcripts to the Economist magazine,
which published them, and in resigning, he never denied the
substance of those. So those allegations are out there. They
haven't been rebutted, and they are very, very serious, but I
just wanted to factually state this.
Mr. Chabot. So they are not necessarily just allegations
that this happened, at least in that case? I guess the
witnesses either were allowed three witnesses and the other
side allowed more or they weren't; these are facts that can be
determined independently, I am assuming.
Would any of the other witnesses like to comment on this?
General Muniruzzaman. Although there is widespread
acceptance of the trial in Bangladesh by the Bangladesh
citizens, but many Bangladeshis are not comfortable with the
kind of standards that we have maintained in the trial because
to bring closure to a case of historical proportion, we have to
have standards at the highest order of international standards
of legal practices.
The questions that you, Mr. Chairman, point out were
allegations which were not clarified by the government, so,
therefore, there is a wide perception that perhaps those
happened. And if those are true, then even many citizens would
become very uncomfortable when such sentences are going up to
the level of death sentences passed against the people who are
convicted.
I think we, not only as citizens, but as international
friends who observe the trials, we should continue to engage
Bangladesh Government in trying to encourage them to have high
moral standards of international legal standards in the courts
and the practices.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Doctor, did you want to comment?
Mr. Riaz. I will briefly state that two things are here:
Procedural, some of them procedural problems that we have seen.
Of course, that needs to be recognized and therefore
international engagement with international crime tribunals
need to be continued. However, at the same time, we need to put
this in the historical context of Bangladesh that over the past
42 years. These trials are also a matter of closure of the
Bangladeshis of the past.
This needs to in some way, a nation was a victim in 1971,
and I personally don't consider it as a victim of one
individual who was killed. The issue of what crime is largely
related to the nation, and that is why it needs to be put into
this historical context and understand why this was necessary,
and why there is a widespread support.
So, procedural questions notwithstanding, it should not be
separated from the issue of justice for the victim, and here I
see victim the whole nation as a victim rather than
individuals.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
My time is expired. I now recognize the chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce, the gentleman from
California.
Chairman Royce. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to get down to the bottom line in terms of
what has happened in Bangladesh and what I think is the
underlying reason. I don't think it is dissimilar to what I
have seen in Pakistan.
In Pakistan, you have the Deobandi schools, and out of
these particular 600 that we are most concerned about are
graduated young men who believe in a jihadi philosophy. Now
they are able, because of their use of tactics of terror, to
then move against a domestic population that maybe does not
share their same views, and they usually target their wrath
against, well, in Pakistan, it was Hindus and Christians and
others.
In Bangladesh today, if we go back to 1947 and we know a
lot of this happened at the outset, but you have a total of 49
million Hindus missing from the rolls. Many of them of course
went to India, but recently, we have a situation where you have
got 1,500 Hindu homes, 50 Hindu temples burned to the ground,
and it is not just Hindus. It is also Christians. It is also
atheists. It is also animists. It is those who do not take the
most fundamentalist viewpoint.
Now that is not most people in Bangladesh. It is a small
percentage of the population. But it is that population that
has been radicalized and has not been given an education, a
wider, broader education. Indeed, the books that they study in
are not even in the Bengal language. They are not even in the
Bangladeshi tongue. They are studying something that they don't
even understand. They don't know Arabic. So, when they
graduate, they don't know anything except what they have been
brainwashed to believe, which is that it is their mission to go
out and try to force conversions. And they do that by
oftentimes by kidnapping girls or kidnapping women. They do
that also by sowing terror.
And we have a situation also where local police sometimes
blame the Hindu population, despite what I have just described
to you, all of that destruction, when that last came, up a mob
of thousands descended on the capital, as you know, thousands
of radicals, demanding a change in the constitution, demanding
that basically their views supersede the views of the wider
community. But some police said, well, you know, we have a
situation where the Hindus created some of the violence because
they originally interfered with the construction of a mosque.
Now, unless the state in Bangladesh is ready to come
forward and close these particular Deobandi schools, the ones
that have been identified as the most radical, the ones that
are telling their charges, their graduates, to go out and
commit this kind of violence, Pakistan, like Bangladesh, are
going down roads here where the consequences will eventually
engulf the state itself. You can see what is happening over in
Pakistan when you don't confront it, and many, many times we
have raised this with officials inside Pakistan because we have
seen the results.
It is the same schools, right? It is the same movement. It
is the same tactics. The results are going to be the same. You
have a continued, effective removal of people who do not adhere
to the views of the radicals.
So just a quick response if you will, and do you think my
judgment is correct here? Is this the wider, deeper problem?
Mr. Riaz. The schools that you are referring to,
Congressman, are the Deobandi schools. There is a large number
of them, of course. This issue has been addressed in some ways
but not necessarily as robustly as it should be. There should
be reform of education sector, and more importantly, these are
the schools, the madrases, which are producing youth who are
not exactly being able to participate in the economic activity.
So there needs to be a reform.
But at this point, I will say this is small numbers, and
whether Bangladesh should travel the path that Pakistan has
already traveled depends on the political will and overall
political circumstances as well. And that is where I see this
instability in Bangladesh is contributing to this kind of
situation.
Chairman Royce. Well, you are down to a Hindu population
that is now at 8.5 percent, and on an ongoing basis, we see the
plight of minority populations. So the government is not doing
enough to protect them. And part of that protection is to do
something about these schools.
Mr. Riaz. I completely agree with you, Congressman. There
have been structural issues. The Bangladeshi population, if you
look into as I have done, from 1951 it has been, you know, the
dwindling population, which I call the missing millions. And
the state has never done what they should be doing.
Irrespective of the political party in power, the Bangladeshi
state has failed to protect this minority, not only the Hindus;
as we have seen this situation, in the Buddhist population
lately in Ramu that is what we have seen. This is an absolutely
terrible situation that we are witnessing.
Unless the state steps up and protects this one and that is
why when Congresswoman asked about the issue of the post
election violence, these are the most vulnerable populations
that we see. And they become the first target of this kind of
situation. So, not only in the context of the election,
overall, these are the issues that need to be addressed. And we
need, you know I would urge the international community to work
closely with not only the Bangladesh Government but the civil
society to make sure that these things are not repeated. We
have seen it enough. And at some point, Bangladeshis and its
partners and wellwishers need to stand up and say enough is
enough. And this is the time we should say enough is enough.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Doctor.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much.
I appreciate our full committee chairman's remarks of
really taking the long view on this and looking at the root
cause of some of these problems we have seeing the symptoms of
and think it has to be included in the conversation.
I wanted to pick up a little bit further on the issue of
the tribunals. Despite the obvious flaws with the tribunals,
clearly, this is an issue of bringing about justice 40 years
later that is absolutely necessary for these heinous acts of
violence against humanity.
A little bit of a two-part question. It is my understanding
that there was violence against Hindus and other minorities
after recent rulings by the crime tribunal convicting some of
these prominent leaders who were complicit in the 1971 attacks.
If you could talk to me about how the government responded
to these attacks in any way, if they did, and what more could
be done to reduce them further? As well as what other forms of
justice can be brought about for the families of the over 3
million victims of the massacres during that 1971 liberation
movement?
You can start, Dr. Riaz.
Mr. Riaz. Thank you.
In regard to the violence that we have seen post the
verdict throughout the whole country, and there has not been
any effective measures from the government, and unfortunately,
the government not only failed to protect them; subsequently,
the government has not provided any support to them. The lip
service is all that we have seen, same we have seen from the
opposition party.
So, at this point, it is not only we cannot simply wait and
see what the government is going to do. It is more important
that the civil society and particularly those NGOs who are
active the rural areas, they need to work very closely in
somehow preventing those kinds of things. Instead of waiting
until the next thing happens, it needs to be preemptive rather
than post-event some sort of support.
So that is an issue that, going forward, one of the reforms
of election and post-election situations are there. It is not
only about today. It is not about tomorrow. There has to be
some kind of an arrangement and it is an international support
that Bangladesh needs, and civil society needs to be included
in this.
As for the international crime tribunal, as I have
mentioned, and as, Congressman you have mentioned, that it is
about the justice, and the heinous crime that has been
perpetrated 42 years ago, the nation became a victim and there
has to be justice. And this cannot be simply seen as a
procedural matter one trial at a time. I think it is a matter
of historical proportion, and that is why when we are talking
about this 3 million people who have been killed, millions have
been suffered, all things need to be taken into account. And
there needs to be a closure, and that is what this trial is all
about. That is how I see it. That is my opinion, although I
have reservations about the trial process.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
General Muniruzzaman. In the violence that took place
against minorities, not only Hindus by particularly also
against Buddhists in the Ramu temple area, the government
completely failed to protect minority rights and their property
and their lives. But I would also like to mention here that
minority casualties and violence did not only take place by
Islamic elements in Bangladesh. It was a result of the very
confrontation nature of politics between the two parties. So,
therefore, a lot of violence was perpetrated by both the
parties. In the case in Santhia, there were press reports
evidence that the violence against the Hindus in the Pabna
district recently was carried out by members close to the
government's ruling party and the press evidences came out
where the Bangladesh Human Rights Commission had charged the
government to say that the perpetrators must be brought to
justice.
So there is a kind of a proxy war that is going on between
the two political elements or the two preliminary coalitions
and parties, and somehow, the minorities happen to be in the
middle, and they become the victims.
I would urge that the Government of Bangladesh take a solid
stand in protection of minorities who are very much a part of
Bangladesh.
Mr. Sifton. I would only add to those excellent remarks by
both witnesses that the issue really boils down to the
politicization of the process. It has become politicized, and
that has hurt it. It has hurt it as a vehicle for justice, as a
vehicle for truth, as a vehicle for healing, everything,
because it has been politicized, that has been impacted.
The fact that the government is allergic to any kind of
criticism whether it comes from Human Rights Watch or in
publications by the Economist or by Stephen Rapp, it is in some
cases an indicator of that.
On the issue of violence against minorities, it is a
serious problem. And I think Mr. Royce is right to bring it up,
you are all right to focus on this. The government has an
obligation to stop violence against minorities, whether it is
committed by political parties or by more radical elements.
The only thing I would observe, though, is that there is a
distinction here between Pakistan. In Pakistan, you have a
government security forces, parts of which are supporting
radical elements within the government.
Thankfully, we do not yet have any evidence of that sort of
thing going on here, where the apparatus of state security
services is actually fomenting radical groups for their own
proxy reasons. If that were to occur, then you we really have a
very dangerous situation. But thankfully, it has not yet.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
The gentlelady's time is expired.
I would like to thank our panel this afternoon for their
testimony. I think it was excellent. I want to particularly
thank the General for flying all the way from Bangladesh to be
present at this hearing.
Members will have 5 days to supplement their remarks or
submit questions. If there is no further business to come
before the subcommittee, we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Note: Material submitted by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) is not
reprinted here but is available in subcommittee records.]